Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User State Migration Tool

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. kur ykh 00:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User State Migration Tool[edit]

(Help!) 22:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know what USMT does. Microsoft gives us a fair description, so we don't need this WP:HOWTO. Guy
Weak keep. I'd say it's clearly a notable piece of software. I'd like to see what can be done with the article by editors interested in writing about it in a more appropriate style; perhaps the article should be tagged for cleanup and we should revisit it after a few months. JulesH (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Cannot accept the argument that anything, that is allready described somewhere else on the Internet, does not belong in a wiki? For me the information included in the User State Migration Tool article is put here by me because I my self would have liked to know about USMT. It would have saved me a lot of trouble to have knowledge of before trying other bad solutions as fx. Windows_Easy_Transfer. Also I consider this page it self just as thorough and relevant, if not more, as fx. the above mentioned page (Windows_Easy_Transfer).
NOTE: I've had this page moved, "Quickdeleted", been acused of blatant advertising and more. All without any comment or explanation up til now. If this is the treatment I can expect to meet on Wikipedia I'll sincerely consider spending my time on more productive information channels. Samohtrelhe (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant software from major companies is notable. It will certainly have been reviewed,and there aremultiple published descriptions about how to use it. I added two generally reliable 3rd party non-Microsoft sources--ZDnet and Safdari books, but I saw dozens of others. . The question for inclusion in Wikipedia here is not whether or not it is available elsewhere on the internet--it is whether it should be in the encyclopedia. Excessively instructional content belongs elsewhere, such as Wikibooks. Perhaps the 4th section in this article is instructional, but that's a problem for editing. The rest is descriptive and belong here. As for the other article mentioned, it too is appropriate, but it too needs some non-Microsoft sources. DGG (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Basic Google Books and Google News archive searches show notability. Between the arguments that we often get that articles without online sources should be deleted and this argument that articles on subjects covered elsewhere on the internet should be deleted we would be left with nothing. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rewrite completely as the editor who seconded the prod when the article was named USMT(diff). As far as I am concerned, this is still promotional FAQ instead of a valid Wikipedia article. If it's kept, it needs a complete, non-promotional rewrite to get it to Wikipedia standard. The sources mentioned above should be incorporated into the article to bolster the points regarding notability (for it to meet WP:N, there must be some reliable sourcing outside of Microsoft. This reads like a Microsoft promo or FAQ sheet instead of what it should be: an article in Wikipedia. B.Wind (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rewrite. There should be a place were there is another view on the microsoft tools. Its already rewritten and there for sure interest to rewrite and modify it. Carsrac (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.